From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:41:17 +0000 Subject: Re: remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops V2 Message-Id: <20181128074117.GA21126@lst.de> List-Id: References: <20181122140320.24080-1-hch@lst.de> <20181122170715.GI30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <11829e3c-7302-f821-cf5c-863e5267a17b@arm.com> <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20181123065511.GA17856@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux@armlinux.org.uk, Linux List Kernel Mailing , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 07:55:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:55:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No, the big immediate benefit of allowing "return -EINVAL" etc is > > simply legibility and error avoidance. > > Well, I can tweak the last patch to return -EINVAL from dma_mapping_error > instead of the old 1 is as bool true. The callers should all be fine, > although I'd have to audit them. Still wouldn't help with being able to > return different errors. Any opinions? I'd really like to make some forward progress on this series.